For games with unlimited rounds that seem like they will never end, I propose a system where the remaining players can vote to set a 'sudden death round limit'.

I am currently playing a game (10367429) where there are three players remaining and the balance of power is quite even. At the time of writing this we are up to round 582 and have been playing for 14 months! It is a common situation where if player X aggressively attacks player Y, then player Z will probably win; so besides the odd minor skirmish –nothing really happens. At this point it is obvious that none of us will suicide nor quit, so we may well be playing this game for many years to come! Not very enjoyable...

It has occurred to me that after a game has reached a certain milestone, say 150 or 200 rounds; the remaining players should have the option to vote to set a round limit to end the game. Perhaps 25 or 50 rounds. The player with the most troops at this point would be declared the winner just like regular round limited games. If the vote to enter sudden death is not unanimous then the game continues as usual until the next opportunity to vote arises (perhaps intervals of 25 rounds).

After 100 rounds of play, the option to vote appears.If the vote passes, the game will continue for a further 100 rounds of play (the game ends on round 200).If the vote does not pass, play will continue and the option to vote will only reappear after another 50 rounds of play.If the vote passes the next time, the game will continue for a further 100 rounds of play (the game ends on round 250).If the vote does not pass, play continues and the cycle continues (option to vote appears 50 rounds after it was unsuccessful).

And to add an extra suggestion, perhaps an option to vote on a truce/abandoning the game should be implemented after 3 unsuccessful voting rounds. Points could be split evenly in a truce (although I suspect this may lead to cheating) or the game could be declared 'abandoned' and no one would gain or lose any points.

After 100 rounds of play, the option to vote appears.If the vote passes, the game will continue for a further 100 rounds of play (the game ends on round 200).If the vote does not pass, play will continue and the option to vote will only reappear after another 50 rounds of play.If the vote passes the next time, the game will continue for a further 100 rounds of play (the game ends on round 250).If the vote does not pass, play continues and the cycle continues (option to vote appears 50 rounds after it was unsuccessful).

And to add an extra suggestion, perhaps an option to vote on a truce/abandoning the game should be implemented after 3 unsuccessful voting rounds. Points could be split evenly in a truce (although I suspect this may lead to cheating) or the game could be declared 'abandoned' and no one would gain or lose any points.

Thoughts?

I'm ok with the round limit additions in the middle of a game. I don't see any issue with that. I don't think the extra suggestion is a great addition though. Can lead to impropriety, as you stated.

I'm only in favor of this if the vote has to be unanimous and not just a majority thing.

Another thing is that eventually you get to know which maps/settings this sort of thing has more of a likelihood and you tend to just put round limits when you play those games. So basically these games are pretty easy to avoid/not join when you see them or create them.

At this point (in game 10367429) I would gladly abandon the game and walk away with no points. The only thing I would gain is the ability to start a new game.

Well, from CC's point of view, they would want you to have an incentive to buy premium.

I agree with chapcrap on your round limit suggestion, but that should be sufficient. The other stuff is exclusively nice to those in stalemates, but I'd rather have all kinds of CC games being treated the same (e.g. a general rule: 2 men enter x-amount of users enter, 1 user leaves).